Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios

A Bayesian adaptive design is proposed for dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials to incorporate the bivariate outcomes, toxicity and efficacy, of a new treatment. Without specifying any parametric functional form for the drug dose-response curve, we jointly model the bivariate binary data to account for the correlation between toxicity and efficacy. After observing all the responses of each cohort of patients, the dosage for the next cohort is escalated, deescalated, or unchanged according to the proposed odds ratio criteria constructed from the posterior toxicity and efficacy probabilities. A novel class of prior distributions is proposed through logit transformations which implicitly imposes a monotonic constraint on dose toxicity probabilities and correlates the probabilities of the bivariate outcomes. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Under various scenarios, the new Bayesian design based on the toxicity-efficacy odds ratio trade-offs exhibits good properties and treats most patients at the desirable dose levels. The method is illustrated with a real trial design for a breast medical oncology study.     

Dose-finding based on feasibility and toxicity in T-cell infusion trials

A new modality for treatment of cancer involves the ex vivo growth of cancer-specific T-cells for subsequent infusion into the patient. The therapeutic aim is selective destruction of cancer cells by the activated infused cells. An important problem in the early phase of developing such a treatment is to determine a maximal tolerated dose (MTD) for use in a subsequent phase II clinical trial. Dose may be quantified by the number of cells infused per unit body weight, and determination of an MTD may be based on the probability of infusional toxicity as a function of dose. As in a phase I trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent, this may be done by treating successive cohorts of patients at different dose levels, with each new level chosen adaptively based on the toxicity data of the patients previously treated. Such a dose-finding strategy is inadequate in T-cell infusion trials because the number of cells grown ex vivo for a given patient may be insufficient for infusing the patient at the current targeted dose. To address this problem, we propose an algorithm for trial conduct that determines a feasible MTD based on the probabilities of both infusibility and toxicity as functions of dose. The method is illustrated by application to a dendritic cell activated lymphocyte infusion trial in the treatment of acute leukemia. A simulation study indicates that the proposed methodology is both safe and reliable.     

TITE-gBOIN-ET: Time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding accounting for ordinal graded efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary objectives of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel therapies, such as molecular-targeted agents and immune-oncology therapies, is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. These new therapeutic agents appear more likely to induce multiple low or moderate-grade toxicities than dose-limiting toxicities. Besides, for efficacy, evaluating the overall response and long-term stable disease in solid tumors and considering the difference between complete remission and partial remission in lymphoma are preferable. It is also essential to accelerate early-stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make real-time adaptive decisions due to late-onset outcomes, fast accrual rates, and differences in outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity. To solve the issues, we propose a time-to-event generalized Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose finding, accounting for efficacy and toxicity grades. The new design named “TITE-gBOIN-ET” design is model-assisted and straightforward to implement in actual oncology dose-finding trials. Simulation studies show that the TITE-gBOIN-ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment while having comparable or higher performance in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across various realistic settings.     

A Bayesian model with application for adaptive platform trials having temporal changes

Temporal changes exist in clinical trials. Over time, shifts in patients' characteristics, trial conduct, and other features of a clinical trial may occur. In typical randomized clinical trials, temporal effects, that is, the impact of temporal changes on clinical outcomes and study analysis, are largely mitigated by randomization and usually need not be explicitly addressed. However, temporal effects can be a serious obstacle for conducting clinical trials with complex designs, including the adaptive platform trials that are gaining popularity in recent medical product development. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian robust prior for mitigating temporal effects based on a hidden Markov model, and propose a particle filtering algorithm for computation. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and provide illustration examples based on trials of Ebola virus disease therapeutics and hemostat in vascular surgery.     

Methodology of Clinical Trials Aimed at Assessing Interventions for Cutaneous Leishmaniasis

The current evidence-base for recommendations on the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is generally weak. Systematic reviews have pointed to a general lack of standardization of methods for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials of CL, compounded with poor overall quality of several trials. For CL, there is a specific need for methodologies which can be applied generally, while allowing the flexibility needed to cover the diverse forms of the disease. This paper intends to provide clinical investigators with guidance for the design, conduct, analysis and report of clinical trials of treatments for CL, including the definition of measurable, reproducible and clinically-meaningful outcomes. Having unified criteria will help strengthen evidence, optimize investments, and enhance the capacity for high-quality trials. The limited resources available for CL have to be concentrated in clinical studies of excellence that meet international quality standards.     

Conditional analysis of mixed Poisson processes with baseline counts: implications for trial design and analysis

The design of clinical trials is typically based on marginal comparisons of a primary response under two or more treatments. The considerable gains in efficiency afforded by models conditional on one or more baseline responses has been extensively studied for Gaussian models. The purpose of this article is to present methods for the design and analysis of clinical trials in which the response is a count or a point process, and a corresponding baseline count is available prior to randomization. The methods are based on a conditional negative binomial model for the response given the baseline count and can be used to examine the effect of introducing selection criteria on power and sample size requirements. We show that designs based on this approach are more efficient than those proposed by McMahon et al. (1994).     

Monitoring the rates of composite events with censored data in phase II clinical trials

In many phase II clinical trials, interim monitoring is based on the probability of a binary event, response, defined in terms of one or more time-to-event variables within a time period of fixed length. Such outcome-adaptive methods may require repeated interim suspension of accrual in order to follow each patient for the time period required to evaluate response. This may increase trial duration, and eligible patients arriving during such delays either must wait for accrual to reopen or be treated outside the trial. Alternatively, monitoring may be done continuously by ignoring censored data each time the stopping rule is applied, which wastes information. We propose an adaptive Bayesian method that eliminates these problems. At each patient's accrual time, an approximate posterior for the response probability based on all of the event-time data is used to compute an early stopping criterion. Application to a leukemia trial with a composite event shows that the method can reduce trial duration substantially while maintaining the reliability of interim decisions.     

Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III

A sequential Bayesian phase II/III design is proposed for comparative clinical trials. The design is based on both survival time and discrete early events that may be related to survival and assumes a parametric mixture model. Phase II involves a small number of centers. Patients are randomized between treatments throughout, and sequential decisions are based on predictive probabilities of concluding superiority of the experimental treatment. Whether to stop early, continue, or shift into phase III is assessed repeatedly in phase II. Phase III begins when additional institutions are incorporated into the ongoing phase II trial. Simulation studies in the context of a non-small-cell lung cancer trial indicate that the proposed method maintains overall size and power while usually requiring substantially smaller sample size and shorter trial duration when compared with conventional group-sequential phase III designs.     

Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials

Phase I trials of cytotoxic agents in oncology are usually dose-finding studies that involve a single cytotoxic agent. Many statistical methods have been proposed for these trials, all of which are based on the assumption of a monotonic dose-toxicity curve. For single-agent trials, this is a valid assumption. In many trials, however, investigators are interested in finding the maximally tolerated dose based on escalating multiple cytotoxic agents. When there are multiple agents, monotonicity of the dose-toxicity curve is not clearly defined. In this article we present a design for phase I trials in which the toxicity probabilities follow a partial order, meaning that there are pairs of treatments for which the ordering of the toxicity probabilities is not known at the start of the trial. We compare the new design to existing methods for simple orders and investigate the properties of the design for two partial orders.     

Estimation of Treatment Difference and Standard Deviation with Blinded Data in Clinical Trials

In an ongoing clinical trial and while the randomized treatment codes remain blinded, it is often desirable to estimate the treatment difference and standard deviation for a normally‐distributed response variable. This is particularly useful for estimating the sample size for future trials or for adjusting the sample size for the ongoing trial. We describe the limitations of an available EM algorithm‐based procedure to reestimate the standard deviation without unblinding the codes for the two treatments. We introduce a new procedure and propose a clinical trial design for estimating both the treatment difference and standard deviation without unblinding. The performance of the proposed procedure is evaluated in a simulation study.     

Patient-specific dose finding based on bivariate outcomes and covariates

SUMMARY: A Bayesian sequential dose-finding procedure based on bivariate (efficacy, toxicity) outcomes that accounts for patient covariates and dose-covariate interactions is presented. Historical data are used to obtain an informative prior on covariate main effects, with uninformative priors assumed for all dose effect parameters. Elicited limits on the probabilities of efficacy and toxicity for each of a representative set of covariate vectors are used to construct bounding functions that determine the acceptability of each dose for each patient. Elicited outcome probability pairs that are equally desirable for a reference patient are used to define two different posterior criteria, either of which may be used to select an optimal covariate-specific dose for each patient. Because the dose selection criteria are covariate specific, different patients may receive different doses at the same point in the trial, and the set of eligible patients may change adaptively during the trial. The method is illustrated by a dose-finding trial in acute leukemia, including a simulation study.     

Adaptive Randomization for Multiarm Comparative Clinical Trials Based on Joint Efficacy/Toxicity Outcomes

Summary .  We present an outcome-adaptive randomization (AR) scheme for comparative clinical trials in which the primary endpoint is a joint efficacy/toxicity outcome. Under the proposed scheme, the randomization probabilities are unbalanced adaptively in favor of treatments with superior joint outcomes characterized by higher efficacy and lower toxicity. This type of scheme is advantageous from the patients' perspective because on average, more patients are randomized to superior treatments. We extend the approximate Bayesian time-to-event model in Cheung and Thall (2002,  Biometrics   58, 89–97) to model the joint efficacy/toxicity outcomes and perform posterior computation based on a latent variable approach. Consequently, this allows us to incorporate essential information about patients with incomplete follow-up. Based on the computed posterior probabilities, we propose an AR scheme that favors the treatments with larger joint probabilities of efficacy and no toxicity. We illustrate our methodology with a leukemia trial that compares three treatments in terms of their 52-week molecular remission rates and 52-week toxicity rates.     

A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial

In this article, we propose a Bayesian approach to phase I/II dose-finding oncology trials by jointly modeling a binary toxicity outcome and a continuous biomarker expression outcome. We apply our method to a clinical trial of a new gene therapy for bladder cancer patients. In this trial, the biomarker expression indicates biological activity of the new therapy. For ethical reasons, the trial is conducted sequentially, with the dose for each successive patient chosen using both toxicity and activity data from patients previously treated in the trial. The modeling framework that we use naturally incorporates correlation between the binary toxicity and continuous activity outcome via a latent Gaussian variable. The dose-escalation/de-escalation decision rules are based on the posterior distributions of both toxicity and activity. A flexible state-space model is used to relate the activity outcome and dose. Extensive simulation studies show that the design reliably chooses the preferred dose using both toxicity and expression outcomes under various clinical scenarios.     

An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes

This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decision-making is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design's performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.     

A Bayesian platform trial design to simultaneously evaluate multiple drugs in multiple indications with mixed endpoints

In the era of targeted therapies and immunotherapies, the traditional drug development paradigm of testing one drug at a time in one indication has become increasingly inefficient. Motivated by a real-world application, we propose a master-protocol–based Bayesian platform trial design with mixed endpoints (PDME) to simultaneously evaluate multiple drugs in multiple indications, where different subsets of efficacy measures (eg, objective response and landmark progression-free survival) may be used by different indications as single or multiple endpoints. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model to accommodate mixed endpoints and reflect the trial structure of indications that are nested within treatments. We develop a two-stage approach that first clusters the indications into homogeneous subgroups and then applies the Bayesian hierarchical model to each subgroup to achieve precision information borrowing. Patients are enrolled in a group-sequential way and adaptively assigned to treatments according to their efficacy estimates. At each interim analysis, the posterior probabilities that the treatment effect exceeds prespecified clinically relevant thresholds are used to drop ineffective treatments and “graduate” effective treatments. Simulations show that the PDME design has desirable operating characteristics compared to existing method.     

Optimizing the concentration and bolus of a drug delivered by continuous infusion

We consider treatment regimes in which an agent is administered continuously at a specified concentration until either a response is achieved or a predetermined maximum infusion time is reached. Response is an event defined to characterize therapeutic efficacy. A portion of the maximum planned total amount administered is given as an initial bolus. For such regimes, the amount of the agent received by the patient depends on the time to response. An additional complication when response is evaluated periodically rather than continuously is that the response time is interval censored. We address the problem of designing a clinical trial in which such response time data and a binary indicator of toxicity are used together to jointly optimize the concentration and the size of the bolus. We propose a sequentially adaptive Bayesian design that chooses the optimal treatment for successive patients by maximizing the posterior mean utility of the joint efficacy-toxicity outcome. The methodology is illustrated by a trial in which tissue plasminogen activator is infused intraarterially as rapid treatment for acute ischemic stroke.     

Bayesian sample size determination using commensurate priors to leverage preexperimental data

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.     

Contrasting principal stratum and hypothetical strategy estimands in multi-period crossover trials with incomplete data

Complete case analyses of complete crossover designs provide an opportunity to make comparisons based on patients who can tolerate all treatments. It is argued that this provides a means of estimating a principal stratum strategy estimand, something which is difficult to do in parallel group trials. While some trial users will consider this a relevant aim, others may be interested in hypothetical strategy estimands, that is, the effect that would be found if all patients completed the trial. Whether these estimands differ importantly is a question of interest to the different users of the trial results. This paper derives the difference between principal stratum strategy and hypothetical strategy estimands, where the former is estimated by a complete-case analysis of the crossover design, and a model for the dropout process is assumed. Complete crossover designs, that is, those where all treatments appear in all sequences, and which compare t treatments over p periods with respect to a continuous outcome are considered. Numerical results are presented for Williams designs with four and six periods. Results from a trial of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) are also used for illustration. The results demonstrate that the percentage difference between the estimands is modest, exceeding 5% only when the trial has been severely affected by dropouts or if the within-subject correlation is low.     

Adaptive enrichment designs with a continuous biomarker

A popular design for clinical trials assessing targeted therapies is the two-stage adaptive enrichment design with recruitment in stage 2 limited to a biomarker-defined subgroup chosen based on data from stage 1. The data-dependent selection leads to statistical challenges if data from both stages are used to draw inference on treatment effects in the selected subgroup. If subgroups considered are nested, as when defined by a continuous biomarker, treatment effect estimates in different subgroups follow the same distribution as estimates in a group-sequential trial. This result is used to obtain tests controlling the familywise type I error rate (FWER) for six simple subgroup selection rules, one of which also controls the FWER for any selection rule. Two approaches are proposed: one based on multivariate normal distributions suitable if the number of possible subgroups, k, is small, and one based on Brownian motion approximations suitable for large k. The methods, applicable in the wide range of settings with asymptotically normal test statistics, are illustrated using survival data from a breast cancer trial.     

Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods.

The aim of an equivalence trial is to show the therapeutic equivalence of two treatments, usually a new drug under development and an existing drug for the same disease used as a standard active comparator. Unfortunately the principles that govern the design, conduct, and analysis of equivalence trials are not as well understood as they should be. Consequently such trials often include too few patients or have intrinsic design biases which tend towards the conclusion of no difference. In addition the application of hypothesis testing in analysing and interpreting data from such trials sometimes compounds the drawing of inappropriate conclusions, and the inclusion and exclusion of patients from analysis may be poorly managed. The design of equivalence trials should mirror that of earlier successful trials of the active comparator as closely as possible. Patient losses and other deviations from the protocol should be minimised; analysis strategies to deal with unavoidable problems should not centre on an "intention to treat" analysis but should seek to show the similarity of results from a range of approaches. Analysis should be based on confidence intervals, and this also carries implications for the estimation of the required numbers of patients at the design stage.